"The real hidden agenda was the Liberals using the courts to do what the Liberals wouldn't publicly endorse as policy themselves. Such courage."

I think you forget the way this all happened.

First there were several successful court challenges to the ban on SSM. Then the government of the day responded in a responsible way - it consulted constitutional experts, drafted a law and then referred it to the SCC to ensure it passed constitutional muster.

They could have fought it all the way, but that would have been a huge waste of tax dollars and of time.

You call it hiding behind the courts and the constitution. I call it acting responsibly in light of the inevitable.

I would not say, however, that the liberals have always supported SSM. I would say they have supported the constitution - and on that point Harper and Co could take some lessons.

The liberals simply used the courts to make sure that SSM fit their constitutional views of SSM. - Terry1

No, the Liberals never ran with SSM on their platform. The whole history of SSM was the abdication to the courts of proper representation by MP's.

If a poll were held today ssm would definitely be approved by a majority of Canadians. -Terry1

Nope, maybe in Quebec but nowhere else, not even Ontario. And it's why the end run around the electorate was done.

You call it hiding behind the courts and the constitution. I call it acting responsibly in light of the inevitable. -Gayle

Please, no more of the "inevitable" rhetoric. SSM advocates use the same language in the US and the only thing "inevitable" so far, has been defeat when presented to the voters.

And it's funny that BCL would run an old photograph claiming a "hidden agenda". When did Conservatives every hide their endorsement of traditional marriage? And when did Liberals ever have SSM in their platform?

Hidden agenda indeed.

The saddest part about this whole issue though, is that even with millions more potential marriage partners, Ti still can't find a mate.

Did you perhaps miss the part where the courts already ruled laws prohibiting SSM to be unconstitutional? I don't know what that means to you, but to those of us who are capable of deductive reasoning, it means that the laws would have to be changed either by the government or by the courts.

You can live in your little deluded world where the Charter does not apply when you really really don't want it to. But in this world, it does.

It's Patrick who's registered on Blogger as "MariaS" (Dodo Can Spell) and used it to troll Canadian Cynic. He already admitted to sock-puppetry here. I'm sure he's been using quite a few other sock-puppets as well.

I used that username over at Red Tory's (A WordPress blog) to mock him, but forgot to clear it when I made another comment in the same thread. I noted the mistake in the very next comment.

If it was a Conservative blog, we've *all* been banned from most of them at some point.

BCL himself was banned from Small Dead Animals several times. It's a badge of honour.

If I trolled your blog, CS, how long would it take for you to ban me? Not that I ever would. Unlike cretins such as yourself, I find it a lot of work to string together disjointed, incoherent and off-topic comments.

You repeated his "subterfuge" and than make excuses for your own behaviour when you are caught.

Nothing on the subject of this post just personal insults TG.

Usually, Ti-Guy limits his contribution to nearly any convsersation to offering third-rate attempts at sophomoric insults of anyone he disagrees with -- particularly when it so happens that he's losing.

But recently Ti-Guy pulled a not-so-new trick out of his bag. He resorted to flagrantly lying:

The first poll that came up from a quick google search was by Environics and put SSM support at a fundy crushing 57%. -CanuckRover

Nope. That's combined approval for SSM and civil unions.

61% of Canadians support SSM. A conbot just making crap up. I'm shocked. _CanuckRover

And that's a poll, not a vote by Canadians.

Supporters of SSM always claimed Canadians were too bigotted to be entrusted with the issue but now say polls are on their side.

But never, ever have they believed Canadian citizens should have a vote on the issue and they still don't.

Did you perhaps miss the part where the courts already ruled laws prohibiting SSM to be unconstitutional? -Gayle

The Supreme Court of Canada never ruled on the topic. Supporters of SSM claim to be able to predict the future with claims of "inevitable" but the peer-reviewed science doesn't support this.

SSM (and it is here to stay for a long, long time), did not come about by any force of conviction by Liberals. Liberals can not take credit for SSM because they never championed it. And that is my point.

Canadian nonsense.......i hve no idea what you are talking baout as usual. I still post under my real alias on Nik's blog.

To Gene Rayburn@849PM.....I love your ex Mrs Iggy quote. CS embodies the true meaning of those initials and is truly a well known crackpot. The local Tory MP won't even respond to emails or phone calls from her.

Submit SSM to a vote? Talking a referendum or an election? You can't derive support for or against a single issue from an election. And a referendum doesn't matter. As if your rights and freedoms should be derived from a popularity contest.

SSM is constitutionally required. The onus is always to demonstrate that a freedom or right is not Charter-protected, not the other way around.

It's obvious that Canadians need to learn our parliamentary system and the Constitution.

Fools believe whatever misinfo Harper sets out on this. Example - the coalition issues. I'm not talking about whether you like the idea or not - but Harper LIED about to Canadians and it certainly showed what little Canadians know in general.

CanadianSense - you are a sad case indeed. Spend all your time arguing and ranting under CS and other names....don't you work?

It would be refreshing if politicians could appeal to what's in the best in the public instead of pandering to the worst in an attempt to score points. Calls to defend marriage from people of the same sex who want to get married would only appeal to people's prejudices and would pit one group another for potential political gains.

I love how Paul ignores the parts of other people's responses that demonstrate that he's wrong.

Anyway...

Nope. Never been determined. It's a good storyline though.

You're such a sleazy little liar. The Supreme Court declined to answer the question in its reference to give Parliament the chance to do its job and pass a law that was constitutional, because everyone knew that the current law was not.

Nope. Our Supreme Court never ruled on the issue, that remains fact. And it's important to remember that it was an activist Ontario Court of Appeal who may have been unduly influenced by SSM activists who got the ball rolling in the first place.

The government of the day was not compelled to accept that decision and could easily have chosen to appeal it if they wished. That in no way means that if the decisions had been appealed that our Supreme Court would have ruled likewise.

Our Supreme Court merely said that Parliament had the authority to change the defintion of marriage, not that SSM was mandatory. It may have been that civil unions or the like may well have satisfied Charter provisions.

But hats off to BCL. A Saturday post on a now settled issue gets nearly 50 responses. Good stuff.